Health care at stake in political debate

Doctors and hospitals depend on the government to reimburse them for treating people on Medicare. When the government reduces or cuts reimbursements, doctors and hospitals have to make their own spending cuts to pay their bills and that can hurt patients.

Politicians continue to debate how to continue paying for the rising cost of Medicare.

By Julie Sherwood, staff writer

MPNnow

By Julie Sherwood, staff writer

Posted Jan. 30, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jan 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM

By Julie Sherwood, staff writer

Posted Jan. 30, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jan 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM

MPNnow.com

The issue

Doctors and hospitals depend on the government to reimburse them for treating people on Medicare. When the government reduces or cuts reimbursements, doctors and hospitals have to make their own spending cuts to pay their bills and that can hurt patients.

Politicians continue to debate how to continue paying for the rising cost of Medicare.

Background

A number of proposals are being considered. U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, voted for House bill H.R. 3630, which passed the House Dec. 13, called the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011. The bill consists of several measures including extending the payroll tax cut, reducing the number of weeks of unemployment benefits, and something called the ‘Doc Fix.’ The ‘Doc Fix’ ensures doctors receive adequate Medicare reimbursement.

There’s a catch.

In protecting doctors, H.R. 3630 strips Medicare reimbursement from hospitals. According to Healthcare Association of New York State (HANYS), it would mean 11 hospitals in the Rochester/Finger Lakes Region, would lose $57 million over the next 10 years.

(Thompson Hospital would lose $2.29 million).

Mark Prunoske, Thompson Health senior vice president of finance and chief financial officer, said about 37 percent of the hospital’s total revenue — from both inpatient and outpatient care — comes from Medicare and the Medicare HMOs that are managed by companies such as MVP and Excellus and involve reimbursement at the Medicare rate.

“If this legislation is approved, it is one more cut to hospitals and health systems that may result in curtailed services and job losses, impacting our ability to provide the high-quality services our community deserves,” he said.

Reed spokesman Tim Kolpien said Reed doesn’t wants cuts to hospitals but he backed the bill because of the other measures in it.

“We are hopeful that cuts to small, rural hospitals will not be in the final bill.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer this past week pitched a plan to ensure doctors and hospitals both keep their reimbursements.

Money to pay for it would come from the money that was budgeted to spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With troops out of Iraq and troop reductions in Afghanistan, there is about $700 billion available, said Schumer; only about $300 billion would be needed to ensure doctors receive their fair, ongoing reimbursements, he said.

What’s next

The House and Senate must agree on a solution by Feb. 29. That is when a short-term extension of the payroll tax cut, which is so far tied to the Medicare-payment issue, expires. Reed is a member of a new bipartisan, House-Senate committee negotiating a final version of a yearlong payroll tax cut.

“It is all being negotiated,” said Kolpien. “It has all got to be paid for, that is the big question.”